Yes. I do that. When I give an opinion, I provide data to backit up.  I don't base my opinions on what feels good or what makes me sound like a nice person. I base my opinions based on the actual facts.

I then insult people who give poinions that are not based on facts but rather on what makes them feel good.

People like you always have good intentions. And because you have good intentions you always try to weasel out of accountability when your policies lead to misery.

Great Society programs of the 60s? They had great intentions. But they have led to disaster. A poverty rate that stagnated until the 1996 welfare reform act which finally got it to start dropping again. A massive increase in illegitimate children. Massively higher health care costs thanks to nobody caring how much health care costs anymore on an idividual basis. 

Then lierals decided that it was wrong for us to hold the mentally disturbed against their will just because they were insane. So we stopped allowing people to be committed without massive effort. The resulting mass increase in homelessness with the result but you can't blame the liberals, they had good intentions.

Liberals had good intentions so we can't blame them right?

I have solutions to the problems, it's just that they don't sound warm and fuzzy. The answer is to have faith in mankind.  Faith that individuals know what's best for them.  And grasp that perfect is the enemy of good.

I do a lot more in my life than simply work a job, ThinkAloud.  I work with a number of charities -- ones of my own choosing based on their performance.  But putting that aside, I also create jobs and opportunity where those jobs and opportunities didn't exist before.  What exactly have you done?

Where exactly do you get off being on some sort of high horse? Oh, that's right, you have good intentions which absolves you from having to actually read up on what you're blathering about.

and that is equivelant to income disparity?

the 1% who won the race by 228% used their own energy? no one else contributed significantly to and are integral part of their achievements? they thought, planned, designed, coordinated, constructed, started, produced, sold, distributed and collected income ALL by themselves as the long-distance runner does?

unless they did all that by themselves the analogy is faulty.

Would that 1% have achieved what they did without the successful efforts of the middle-class? dont they deserve to have their income rise with at least a fraction of that 228%?

assuming that the COB figures are adjusted for inflation:
228% rise in income over 26 years means 3.2% raise per year above inflation level. compared to ZERO% for the middle-class.

dont the people who contributed in the success deserve to increase their standard of level too? say 0.5% above inflation? this would have led to 13.8% rise in income for the middle-class. is that too much? dont you think that would have strengthened the economy even more which very likely would have increased everyone's income even more by increasing the purchasing or saving power of the consumer base?

Is that a re-distribution of wealth as you call it or generation of more wealth as it really is?

but shortsightedness and tunnel vision prevented that.

More tunnel vision???

and the problem i am seeking a solution for is an individual problem? it is general and affecting the whole neighborhood. the problem is caused by individuals ... these individuals have to be dealt with one at a time ....

you look at the last section of the solution and scream .... individual .... look at the whole problem and you will see the general ..... not just the individual.

general welfare is to solve general probelms ..... but dont stop there

general problems are caused by individuals .....

solve each individual's problem in order to solve the general problem .... which is general welfare .....

too many steps for you to follow?

is there such a thing called "general welfare problem " without being a problem created by many individuals at the same time which is caused by the same thing like illness, ignorance, crime ..etc? if there is, then i agree ... no individuals should be involved in the solution.

but if the individuals are the cause of that problem ... then they must be involved .... can you solve the problem without them?

if so ... please explain and offer your solution.

The runner had a trainer, also was born with good genetics to be a runner, had access to good food. Had the instustrial society to produce the shoes. The track was built and maintained by other people.

You talked about income disparity. And disparity is disparity. The less regulated a thing is, the more disparity there is.  It has nothing to do with fairness or not.

 

Look, you asked about disparity. I told you what causes it. 

Now you're taking a different question - wheter it's fair. That's philosophy. Who defines what is "fair"? You? The men with guns?

How does it hurt you if someone else has more money than you? Is your political viwpoint purely driven by envy? Does the fact that Jerry Seinfeld made $60 million last year hurt you in any way?

Shouldn't the question be, are you satisfied with how much you are being copensated for what you produce? And if not, what can you do to change it?

No, pointing out what the framer's intended with the constitution is not tunnel vision. Words mean things. Often they mean very specific things such as what "to promote the generla welfare" was meant by the founding fathers. It's not subject to debate because it is known what those words meant and they did not mean to steal from one person to give to another based on "need".

If you want to argue that we should have welfare, so be it. But don't sit back and look like a dumb ass by arguing that the constitution was written with income redistribution envisioned.

who is resorting to slogans and politics now?

to hell with left and right ... liberals and conservatives

The problem will be solved by Faith?

and Faith is just words? or is there some kind of actions taken like the ones suggested by LW?

just let charities deal with it? well .... they didnt ... that is how we got the problem in the first place. If they were doing such a good job, how did we end up with all those sick, ignorant and criminal elements in our neighborhood?

I dont care and in reality no one cares how much you and all the charities in the world do, the fact is we have got a problem .... you and your charities and the charities of the whole world did not prevent the problem .....so what do we do?

still say Faith in people will solve it? it didnt before ....these charities were there but still the problem continued despite all the charities' efforts.it helped i am sure but they couldnt solve it on their own.

what do we do?

may be your solution is this: just leave it the way it is ... that is the way life is. Is that it? but the problem is dragging us with it ... dont you realize that?

and you think i am just a feel-good type?

you are sadly mistaken. I see myself and the neighborhood going down and i am worried about ME. May be you dont worry as much because you are high up on the ladder ...but most of us are not that high ... and any small dragging down will sink us ....

is that the reaosn for your total disregard for the problem? if it is then like i said before please set down, it is not your problem .... and we will solve it. If you dont like the solution ..... too bad. the majority rules.

Okay think Aloud, you're just nuts. Or at least, too dumb to continue conversing with.  When you've bothered to read up on these issues, feel free to re-read what I've already written and maybe you'll have a better grasp of what I said.

your saying that there aren't any sick, ignorant or criminal elements in your neighborhood now thanks to the government.


if that is what your saying i suggest that you either need to open your eyes. or you live in a gated community that has only one house in it.

and by the way the so called welfare program was designed to keep the status quo. it was not meant to help people. it was meant to keep people on it.

Thanks for sitting down.



I been reading about these issues before you were born Draginol ..... dont think just because i am not responding to you in kind that i dont know what i am talking about.

what i am talking about is the same as what the experts of macro and micro economics at the highest institutions of the land are talking about. not biased think tanks who were built specifically to spread the voodoo economics and unsound policies of Reagan
and the current crop of conservatives. These policies were discredited by Reagan's own budget director and later by Kemp ... one of his main supporters. and even Bush Sr. i didnt invent the term "Voodoo economics" Bush Sr did.

No reason to turn this into a personal bragging .... you are welcome to do it ... but along the way ... please offer a solution... a practical one .... if you have any.

is that what i am really saying?

we can do much better and we should do it effeciently.... that is what i am saying.



may be you are right and that is stupid for sure. but i doubt it was intentional and that is not what i am talking about. and you know it. so why divert the discussion that way?

there is always a way to solve or minimize problems .... excesses on either side make things worse.

i will tell you the samething i told gene. i do not want the government in my daily life.

i do not want the government in my daily life.

this is something we all agree and insist on. No argument from anyone about this point.

2 problems with this. First, charities are not in the business of preventing it, as they are geared to mitigating it.

2nd, Why would you blame someone or thing for trying to help just because they are not prepared to stop the problem from occurring? Should I not give to the homeless man because I did not stop him from becoming homeless? That is the most assinine statement I have ever heard, and you are telling us that?